GOHIL KULDIPSINH CHHANUBHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned Advocates appearing for the respective respondents waives service of notice of rule. In the present writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the only prayer made by the petitioner is that they may continue till the regularly selected candidates are available. He has submitted that all the petitioners are on contractual basis and are being engaged since the year 2009 onwards. It is submitted by him that despite the advertisement, which is issued by the respondent-University, they are engaging the employees on contractual basis and no regular recruitment is made. Thus, he has submitted that till the regularly selected candidates are appointed by the respondent-University, they may be continued.

(3.) Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Vikas Nair appearing for the respondent-University has submitted that the petitioners have no right to be continued till regularly selected candidates are available. He has submitted that all the petitioners are bound by their contract in service and conditions mentioned therein. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of University Of Delhi vs Delhi University Contract Employees Union , AIR 2021 SC 3305 and in the case of Union of India v. Ilmo Devi , AIR 2021 SC 4855.